Fact Checkers Apply Within - Facts Not Required
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
This is actually a good example of desinformation, whether it be intentional or simply by not understanding the topic well. He doesn't think or 'admit' the mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy. Not in this vid you posted, not at any other time. He simply made a remark that the mRNA vaccines might help in getting people to accept high-tech medical solutions. That's why he says the vaccines are an example FOR gene therapy, not an example OF gene therapy.
Being critical is good. Believing and spreading false information you read online without checking/understanding it yourself because it appears to be critical about something you are wary about yourself is the opposite of being critical.
"...ultimately the mrna vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy..."
Why was the definition of vaccine changed in the dictionary?
Merriam-Webster gives "vaccine" a new definition
April 30, 2021 @ 9:10 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Etymology, Language and medicine, Lexicon and lexicography
« previous post | next post »
Prefatory note: In this post, I take the noun "vaccine" as the basic word under discussion, but also consider other cognate terms ("vaccinate", "vaccination").
Here's a standard dictionary entry for "vaccine":
n.
1. any preparation of weakened or killed bacteria or viruses introduced into the body to prevent a disease by stimulating antibodies against it.
2. the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.
3. a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses.
[1800–05; < New Latin (variolae)vaccīnae cowpox = vacc(a) cow + -īnae, feminine pl. of -īnus -ine]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
(cited)
Let us compare that with the new M-W entry for "vaccine":
: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a : an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b : a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
Why was the definition of vaccine changed in the dictionary?
Merriam-Webster gives "vaccine" a new definition
April 30, 2021 @ 9:10 am · Filed by Victor Mair under Etymology, Language and medicine, Lexicon and lexicography
« previous post | next post »
Prefatory note: In this post, I take the noun "vaccine" as the basic word under discussion, but also consider other cognate terms ("vaccinate", "vaccination").
Here's a standard dictionary entry for "vaccine":
n.
1. any preparation of weakened or killed bacteria or viruses introduced into the body to prevent a disease by stimulating antibodies against it.
2. the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.
3. a software program that helps to protect against computer viruses.
[1800–05; < New Latin (variolae)vaccīnae cowpox = vacc(a) cow + -īnae, feminine pl. of -īnus -ine]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
(cited)
Let us compare that with the new M-W entry for "vaccine":
: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a : an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b : a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
...ultimately the mrna vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy...
-> As I explained: they are an example FOR cell and gene therapy. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that or what you are trying to say by posting this again.
As to why the definiton changed: I didn't look into it, but from what you posted it seems the old definition was not correct anymore so they updated it. In the old version mRNA vaccins didn't meet the criteria listed, in the new version they do. I don't see a problem there.
They are related, cell and gene therapy vs vaccine mechanism of action.
You sound familiar with the biological term "Mechanism of action".
This is typical of the deliberate Covid misinformation you post regularly. Let's take a look at reality instead of your nonsense.
Chance That COVID-19 Vaccines Are Gene Therapy? 'Zero'
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210719/covid-19-vaccines-not-gene-therapy
Fact-check: Are COVID-19 vaccines gene therapy?
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...cine-omicron-variant-gene-therapy/8888122002/
Viral Instagram post: COVID-19 vaccine is "just a little gene therapy."
PolitiFact ruling: False
=================================
Covid misinformation causes the deaths of tens of thousands of people across the globe. Nearly a quarter million Covid deaths in the U.S. were preventable if people had gotten vaccinated. Most these deaths involve people who did not get vaccinated due to misinformation.
Have you no shame? The misinformation you spread is directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Have you no sense of decency?
There is an entire thread dedicated to fact checking Covid-denier nonsense which regularly is posted in this forum.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/fact-checking-covid-denier-nonsense.362220/
What do you mean by 'they are related'? If you mean they are both high-tech medical practices, then yes of course. If you mean they both work in the same way and alter DNA, then no, that is incorrect.
I have not interest in starting a discussion about vaccines, there are other threads on this forum where you can go if that is what you are looking for. Since Van_der_Voort_4 mentioned 'critical thinking' I answered that his posts don't reflect him being a critical thinker, but rather a blind follower of Russian and anti-vax disinformation.
You then joined saying I was wrong in drawing that conclusion suggesting he was simply being critical about the jabs and not anti-vax, to which I explained I took the content of his posts into account, not just the fact that he was questioning anything.
You then asked me a question about gene therapy and vaccines to trap me, but unfortunately for you it kinda blew up into your face since your vid was again an example of anti-vax disinformation and a perfect example of the opposite of critical thinking.
I know you can post another 100 links with misinformation, but by now I think I read all of it twice already so please save yourself the trouble.
This thread was created to post examples of how official fact checkers are often wrong and driven by their own narratives.
It wasn't meant to be a fight over the vaccines (Van_der_Vort and trading_Jean). Kindly take your Hatfield/McCoy routine over to any one of the 1000 COVID threads created by gwb_trading and his ongoing horseshit.
Thank you.
It wasn't meant to be a fight over the vaccines (Van_der_Vort and trading_Jean). Kindly take your Hatfield/McCoy routine over to any one of the 1000 COVID threads created by gwb_trading and his ongoing horseshit.
Thank you.
As I pointed out in my post myself I have no intention discussing the vaccines, I was merely pointing out how important critical thinking is.
And with regards to the topic: fact checkers should not be trusted, but they can be a great help to quickly find in what direction one should look to find realible data and/or sources. If the fact check doesn't provide that information it's worthless.
And with regards to the topic: fact checkers should not be trusted, but they can be a great help to quickly find in what direction one should look to find realible data and/or sources. If the fact check doesn't provide that information it's worthless.
The Fact Checkers are political activists posing as professionals in some chosen field while pretending to be experts. Just another wing of the religious cult known as political science.